Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

This happened to my uncle, actually; it devastated him by some fairly large degree. I personally don't really understand it (I feel similarly to you, I mean, um, if you love someone and can't offer them all of their needs, shouldn't you be happy to find someone who could?)...

If his wife was a lesbian all along then she should have married a woman in the first place instead of leading your uncle along all these years.

How do you know she was leading his uncle? For all we know she could've been confused all along... Or realized her lesbian side later in life.

This happened to my uncle, actually; it devastated him by some fairly large degree. I personally don't really understand it (I feel similarly to you, I mean, um, if you love someone and can't offer them all of their needs, shouldn't you be happy to find someone who could?)...

If his wife was a lesbian all along then she should have married a woman in the first place instead of leading your uncle along all these years.

Haha well yes she should have, but there are many social and psychological factors in todays world why she might not have done that.

It amazes me to see how many people think that issues raised in this thread are simplistically black or white!

Oh no, not racism now?

That was not funny.

No - it's not funny. And Bruce's original point was well taken.

It amazes me also how many people seem incapable of seeing, comprehending and appreciating the "grey" in life. Either they can't wrap their brains around complex issues, or in an effort to make sense of the world they conveniently (and simplistically) choose to put issues (and groups of people) in little boxes. Of course, this has been the case throughout history. You'd think we'd learn.

It amazes me also how many people seem incapable of seeing, comprehending and appreciating the "grey" in life. Either they can't wrap their brains around complex issues, or in an effort to make sense of the world they conveniently (and simplistically) choose to put issues (and groups of people) in little boxes. Of course, this has been the case throughout history. You'd think we'd learn.

Very well said, carey, and thanks for that.

Otherwise, I tend to find FSO's posts a bit opaque and rather unpenetrable. I think I get where he is coming from, and if indeed he is anti-science, then he is certainly in US Republican territory.

Music as an art is one of the few hopes I have of people retaining some kind of purpose in life, some form of feeling (put in the most dramatic way possible), but the impression I get from those around is that music as an art form is dying; music as a pleasant noise is ever on the rise (though this is nothing new, of course).

I love romantics!

Your apprehension about science is understandable.Your lament about music and classical music is well motivated.

The question of course is: does increased scientific understanding of how music " pushes our buttons " preclude the enjoyment of classical music or the further development of profound classical music that makes us " filled with purpose and feeling "?

For example, we are gaining new insights into how quiet prayer can be psychologically healing, stress and anxiety reducing and " good for the brain " for the one doing the contemplation and praying, even while other studies show that the efficacy of prayer is zero, making no statistical difference in the outcomes for that or for whom one is praying. Does that mean that the religious should not bother praying or does it mean that the non-religious should start praying?

At the moment, some of the most profound insights into how we actually listen to music, how our brains parse music like another language (which started in academia surrounding 20th century classical post-modernism and the reaction to modernist classical music, e.g. 12 tones, serialism, etc., that nobody could, would or wanted to listen to) and how it interacts with our psychological reward systems have now been co-opted by advertising executives, Hollywood movie producers, department store marketing executives and pop music producers. Why? Well, because it makes them lots of money.

However, this does not mean that these same insights cannot be used to some degree or another by contemporary composers of classical or art-music works. The problem of course lies in what makes art music art music? There is an expectation that it should be pushing the envelope or doing more than crassly press psychological buttons like so many Lay's potato chips (or the music that sells them). And, part of what makes art music art music is that it makes necessary, higher-order assumptions about the sophistication, education, motivation, experience, open-mindedness, etc. of listeners. As our society (with children raised on a steady diet of TV, MTV, video games, 24/7 smartphone multimedia connection, etc.) moves more towards: low discipline, passive consumption versus active participation, little appreciation for delayed gratification, everything fast, short attention spans, expectations of frequent and discrete stimulation, no universal childhood education in music, etc. then the question is if art music must not also change. Not necessarily dumb down, but meet halfway such as Jacob ter Veldhuis (JacobTV) is doing. Or should future classical music become even more of an elite bastion separate from society, like a Monastery on the hill, than it has been in the past?

Originally Posted By: FSO

I fear (getting a little more on topic ) that if we could pinpoint the exact parts of the brain that make someone homosexual...well, um, isn't that just fuel for homophobics to say "look, we were right all along, they *are* different, ewww!"? I think....um...schools should have a lesson along the lines of "just plain good manners and decorum"; we've come a long way but I think social evolution needs to take place in a major way before technological. I mean, um, we can put people on the moon yet there's still harsh intolerance out there regarding things that, millenia ago, were considered not only fine but virtuous even! I don't know...doesn't that seem silly?

Well, when Dick Swaab presented his findings about " the homosexual brain " people were marching in the streets in protest. The fear is that if you can already tell if your baby is homosexual in the womb, that the next step will be that, in many places in the world, women will be offered abortions to avoid having a gay son. Or a lesbian daughter -- that is if they haven't already long aborted knowing that their baby would be a girl which is tragically commonplace in India, China and in many other countries.

So, the blade of science can cut two ways.

On the one hand, the fight for equal human rights should be supported by the evidence that homosexuals cannot do anything to change their sexual orientation. They can only express it, suppress it or hide it just like they can't change their eye color they can only mask them with contact lenses until their eyes have become so dry that they can't go on anymore.

On the other hand, with the right (wrong?) governments and the right (wrong?) culture the same knowledge could be used to "purge" homosexuality from the human race as if it were the same thing as a grave congenital defect. Lest we forget, eugenics was all the rage in some places just over half a century ago, especially in the United States before WWII. It is not the science that has gone bad, but what we do with the science.

If all homosexuals were eliminated from the face of the planet, I shudder to think what that would mean for the arts in general and the piano in particular, given how many artists have been homosexual. On the other hand, could it be possible that the reason so many homosexuals have become artists in the past is not because they are homosexual, but because of homophobia?

As we are learning with the ongoing ecological and human health disaster that is being wrought by genetically modified corn, messing with billions of years of evolution can be a very dangerous thing to do indeed. There are evolutionary psychologists who posit that the reason that homosexuality has been selected for as an evolutionary advantage over millions of years (despite homosexuals not being able to directly procreate in isolation) is because of the positive impact it had on humanity, families and communities. Gay uncles with no children of their own had the time, energy and bandwidth to conceive and develop those things that enrich our life beyond "hunting, gathering, eating, defecating & breeding" that make us human, not just animals, while they also played a supportive role in ensuring that their nieces and nephews had extra help in life to survive and thrive.

Carey...I assume you find Immanuel Kant over-simplifies things which his poor little head can't get to grips with?

But of course !! To be fair, however, at least he gave it his best shot.

I can't argue with Kant 'cause I couldn't get through it all.

Tangentially relevant to the topic at hand, the NYT published a short essay today on the topic of ethnocentrism. It refers to the culinary practices of some cultures which put the idea of having someone with whom you disagree " forced down your throat " in a completely different light. It also discusses the difficulty of using reason when discussing matters of mores and morals.

Millions of men and women live as straight or gay people, but that is quite different from attaction. That is why women can be hurt or men can be hurt. The woman marries a guy who lives as a straight man and dates women and marries a women and usually by 40 he realizes he wants to be who really is, so he tells his wife he has always been attracted to men and thought he could live as a straight man but now he wants a divorce and wants to live as a gay man. Those women are pretty upset being dumped by a husband and having kids and now at 40 they have to adjust to the new father/husband and sort of start over. Were they lied to? Religion can influence their decisions and sometimes play a small role in some cases. So you can believe what you want to believe about choice.

Many years ago I was acquainted with a gay guy who had earlier been trying to live the straight life, and was so strenuously committed to it that he ended up fathering five children. Later, after it became clear to him that he was gay, he attempted to sue the Catholic church for child support, on the basis that they had brainwashed him into making babies, more or less from childhood. I thought he had a pretty good argument, but unfortunately the case didn't gain any traction in court.

It is not the science that has gone bad, but what we do with the science.

I entirely agree...with pretty much the rest of this post too. Just...I would rather be amazed by the world than understand it, you know? I mean, um...it's like magic; understanding *how* it's done is cool in a way (and so I completely understand how an appreciation for the elegance in how the world is constituted can exist) but is much less likely to yield a feeling of awe...no? As with all opinions, of course, it is only relatively correct to those that hold it and so I apologise for stating myself so firmly; be under no disillusion, um, I feel no different about the personableness for those who feel differently...I mean, my soulmate believes that all we are is governed by neuroscientific principles; part of what makes a great commune is understanding that others experience and think of the world entirely differently and trying to experience as they experience...so, um, for future reference, if it ever feels as though I'm trying to force my opinion on you or otherwise threatening your position, I'm not; I'm just trying to get to know you in this unfortunately hostile (to me ) form of sharing ^>^

_________________________
Sometimes, we all just need to be shown a little kindness <3

For example, we are gaining new insights into how quiet prayer can be psychologically healing, stress and anxiety reducing and " good for the brain " for the one doing the contemplation and praying, even while other studies show that the efficacy of prayer is zero, making no statistical difference in the outcomes for that or for whom one is praying. Does that mean that the religious should not bother praying or does it mean that the non-religious should start praying?

It means that the healing effect of prayer should be compared with that of other sorts of quiet meditation, lacking religious overtones. Counting sheep may be as efficacious as counting angels.

On the one hand, the fight for equal human rights should be supported by the evidence that homosexuals cannot do anything to change their sexual orientation. They can only express it, suppress it or hide it just like they can't change their eye color they can only mask them with contact lenses until their eyes have become so dry that they can't go on anymore.

I suspect that many people besides myself disagree with that, and argue that whether or not homosexuality involves conscious choice is irrelevant to the need for everyone to respect and accept each other. I believe that if people choose to be in a relationship together, that should be respected, end of story, assuming that the relationship is age-appropriate rather than, for example, a 40-year-old dating a 14-year-old. Based on what I have read (as a layperson), it does seem that sexual orientation is probably not a matter of choice, I agree, but I don't see that that should have any bearing on the case for acceptance and equality.

"Hmmm, well, because there seems to be good evidence that you can't help being the way you are, we'll accept you and treat you equally."

That attitude invites a well-deserved, sarcastic, "Gee, thanks a lot!", does it not? Because there seems an embedded implication that if one's sexuality were a matter of choice, the offer of equality might be withdrawn. I think in general that the whole business of a majority deciding to bestow acceptance/equality on a minority, as if making a gift, is not a good thing. I have found your posts carefully considered and interesting, and I agree with a lot of what you say, but I needed to take exception to this part.

It is not the science that has gone bad, but what we do with the science.

I entirely agree...with pretty much the rest of this post too. Just...I would rather be amazed by the world than understand it, you know? I mean, um...it's like magic; understanding *how* it's done is cool in a way (and so I completely understand how an appreciation for the elegance in how the world is constituted can exist) but is much less likely to yield a feeling of awe...no?

Again, I would argue that "being in awe " of the world versus (better) "understanding it" is a false dichotomy. You can have both. However, the source and nature of your amazement will likely become deeper or more cerebral like peeling an onion and having seemingly another smaller onion to go or opening a Russian Matryoshka doll and being presented with another doll.

Seeing a magician saw through a young blonde or transform a lighted cigarette into a live dove taking flight might generate a sense of awe within a spectator. However, to then understand how the trick is performed, and, more importantly, what the inherent perceptual and psychological limitations are of the human mind that allow such tricks to be successfully performed on us can generate a much more profound sense of awe than the cheap trick itself. Once we understand these perceptual and psychological limitations, then yet another level of awe-inducing realization appears on the horizon informing us that we never, ever really completely see reality, but only a limited, simplified, modeled construct, a subjective interpretation informed more by our previous experiences, beliefs and biases, inferred and computed by our brain. How much more jaw-droppingly awe-inspiring and thought-provoking is that than simply the sight of some bloke pulling a rabbit out of his top hat?

You can look up at the stars at night and enjoy a sense of awe of the sublime beauty and you might imagine god sitting up there on his throne looking down at you. Then, later as your curiosity leads you to learn something of cosmology you discover the nature of stars, the numbers, the sizes, distances, time frames, etc. etc. You realize that there are 100 thousand million stars in the Milky Way alone and outside that, there are millions upon millions of other galaxies to boot! Your level of awe goes up exponentially!!

It depends on how you look at it, I suppose. "Awe" is probably one of my primary motivations for listening to and performing classical music. However, the more I know, the more my sense of awe seems to increase, though irrevocably transformed: until dementia sets in you can never retrieve your lost innocence.

Originally Posted By: FSO

As with all opinions, of course, it is only relatively correct to those that hold it and so I apologise for stating myself so firmly; be under no disillusion, um, I feel no different about the personableness for those who feel differently...I mean, my soulmate believes that all we are is governed by neuroscientific principles; part of what makes a great commune is understanding that others experience and think of the world entirely differently and trying to experience as they experience...so, um, for future reference, if it ever feels as though I'm trying to force my opinion on you or otherwise threatening your position, I'm not; I'm just trying to get to know you in this unfortunately hostile (to me ) form of sharing ^>^

No need for apologies.

Well, I can imagine that the more that a given personality type leverages feeling, sensing or intuiting, the more dis-satisfying that the logical, rational, descriptive, cerebral descriptions of phenomena could be that often emerge when the curtain is pushed aside and we see what is behind them.

Pesky technology, typing to each other as a species that normally gets 70% of the information value from a conversation with someone from visual non-verbal gestures. On the other hand, without these internet fora we might never be having these group conversations ... we have to accept the limitations together with the new gifts...until pianoworld or a competitor offers to use technology widely available today such as google hangouts.

You *do* make a very convincing argument, I'll certainly grant you that much But we are talking of two very different forms of awe here...I'm not sure, in all honesty, that they can be compared. But, um, just FYI I used to study maths at university; I have a firm appreciation for the elegance in the rational...pushing aside the psychological curtain entails, not necessarily but always with the risk of, fear, you must agree?

_________________________
Sometimes, we all just need to be shown a little kindness <3

On the one hand, the fight for equal human rights should be supported by the evidence that homosexuals cannot do anything to change their sexual orientation. They can only express it, suppress it or hide it just like they can't change their eye color they can only mask them with contact lenses until their eyes have become so dry that they can't go on anymore.

I suspect that many people besides myself disagree with that, and argue that whether or not homosexuality involves conscious choice is irrelevant to the need for everyone to respect and accept each other. I believe that if people choose to be in a relationship together, that should be respected, end of story, assuming that the relationship is age-appropriate rather than, for example, a 40-year-old dating a 14-year-old. Based on what I have read (as a layperson), it does seem that sexual orientation is probably not a matter of choice, I agree, but I don't see that that should have any bearing on the case for acceptance and equality.

"Hmmm, well, because there seems to be good evidence that you can't help being the way you are, we'll accept you and treat you equally."

That attitude invites a well-deserved, sarcastic, "Gee, thanks a lot!", does it not? Because there seems an embedded implication that if one's sexuality were a matter of choice, the offer of equality might be withdrawn. I think in general that the whole business of a majority deciding to bestow acceptance/equality on a minority, as if making a gift, is not a good thing. I have found your posts carefully considered and interesting, and I agree with a lot of what you say, but I needed to take exception to this part.

I actually agree with you. In an ideal world within an open, tolerant secular society consisting of informed, educated, responsible and engaged citizens with a well-functioning democracy of majority rule with careful protection of minority rights, separation of church and state and with freedom and equal opportunity and respect for all that should be the way it works: "if people choose to be in a relationship together, that should be respected, end of story."

Unfortunately, compared to the Western societies that most of us live in, the above description is utopia. Therefore, we have to recognize where we are now, understand what some of the key blocks are towards achieving the kind of free and open society we want to live in and then think about the best strategies, tactics and methods of communication in order to achieve the desired societal change.

One side of this is being respected by your family and community. Another aspect is having the legal protections and rights. Take the US for example, as just one country among many in the West. Separation between church and state is a real muddle. There is no real difference between religious marriage and civil marriage and, in fact, country preachers with no civil status can legally marry people (unlike in various other western countries where only a government official can marry you civilly after which you can optionally choose to go get married in a church which only is valid for you and your religion.) There is also the DOMA, a federal law saying that legally married homosexuals may not be recognized nor enjoy any federal marriage benefits. At the same time 10 states have constitutional amendments to explicitly prohibit or take back equal human rights of marriage for gays. These are laws that were passed more or less democratically and which in almost every case the majority opinion was informed by religious conviction or emotional appeals masquerading as religious or conservative conviction.

One of the most common reasons given by people when asked why they believe that homosexuals, like black slaves and women before them, should not have equal rights is that they have been told that it is against their religion. During the past century a majority of Americans have nominally self-identified as christian. Many Christian sects within Christ-ianity, (which might better be called St. Paul-inanity considering the outsized impact that Saul of Tarsus had on forming the organized religion and considering how little Jesus' teachings of poverty, love and compassion are valued by his self-proclaimed followers today) are often preached to in churches that homosexuality is not only bad and sinful, but that it is a bad choice, like choosing to become an adulturer, a bank robber or a mass murderer is a bad choice. This is why there are any number of sham clinics that exist to "cure" homosexuals. It is also why some deeply religious parents can shun their children and kick them out of their homes if they dare to share their personal identity with them. And why an estimated 40% of all teen suicides are gay kids. And, this is why many of these laws get passed.

However, when people finally realize how many people around them that they know or love are homosexual, that their son or neighbor or teacher or grocer or whomever is gay and that this is not a matter of spiteful choice and " lifestyle " (as if it were the same as getting a season ticket to baseball or not) but how you are made by God, then there can be nothing more sinful about being born as a gay person than being born a woman or being born black. The Bible says next to nothing about homosexuality but gives all kinds of advice to slave-holders and indicates that women (often multiple women simultaneously) are the property or chattel of their husbands, yet we now reject both slavery and misogyny. Suddenly the discussion is not about evil and sin and choices but about what you described: accepting and respecting another human being who just happens to be different than you -- instead of being guilty oneself of loudly fomenting irrational and unfounded hatred, bigotry or discrimination.

As for choosing their sexuality, that is to say, straight or gay, in my opinion all human beings do.

Surely you jest.

I've never met a single person who "chose" their sexual orientation, and I'm a couple of weeks shy of 63. I was attracted to girls at age 5, and yes, I have very clear memories of that, because those thoughts occupied most of my childhood fantasies. (OK, maybe they still do.) So what sort of "choice" could I have been making at the age of 5, when I had never even heard the word "sex"?

And what about the millions of gay people in this world? Are they a mass of raving masochists, who "choose" to be gay so they can enjoy being insulted, ridiculed, and beaten to a pulp? Society may be more tolerant of homosexuality today, but it still remains one tough slog, so the idea that anyone would choose to be gay is ludicrous. Any more than I chose to be straight, or chose to have blue eyes.

By extension, would you also say that left-handed people choose to be lefties so they can struggle their entire lives with appliances made for the rest of us? Frankly, I'm stunned by your comment.

I don't agree with the Old man! Homosexuality gets forced down my throat! They tell me that all gays are nice people, they are loving, they are kind,... & bla bla bla . . . Well I remember the first time someone told me what homosexuals do. I said "They put their "WHAT" into another guys "WHAT"??? I was shocked cause I thought, maybe homosexuals missed sex education class. So poop came from that place and I just couldn't wrap my thinking around the strangeness of "doing" that to someones' . . . Each to his own, but I ummmm well, . . . well, I still can't and won't go for that. Nor should I have to!

I watch a tv program where this guy had a love interest in his "sister"! She didn't like how he was acting around here, so the guy went for help from a councellor and solved his stronge desires for his sister. She didn't have the same feelings he did!

Anyways, there are some of us (me) who will never understand how men want men or how woman want woman. It's not that we are "homophobic" just like if I don't want to take "illegal drugs" makes me "drugaphobic"! I don't want to get high, I have a right to not do drugs if I chose not to. I have had people try to force me to take drugs & verbally abuse me for not going ahead with it. Call me a goody 2 shoes but leave me be!! . I personally just won't agree with homosexuallity, nor should I be forced to. I think when a man lays with a woman, a baby is produced. When a man lays with a man, nothing is produced. It just doesn't sit right with me. I don't understand it, so please . . . don't force it down my throat! I'm not beating up gays, I'm just not comfortable with the whole . . . with the whole, thought of it!

Thank you for understanding my side. I have a right to not accept it. Please don't verbally abuse me for having a different view of this than you do!

I play the piano. What I do in my bedroom is my business!

Yikes! Some of you certainly have a lot of time on your hands. I just got back from being out of town and, well, this thread has certainly turned into a "bummer" thread! (pun intended. Sorry, ...I couldn't resist!)

Anyways, I read through all the so-called "tolerate" comments. I read and read and am still NOT convinced. (Some of you have "wayyyyy" too much time on your hands!!!!) I still find that homosexuality is strange and unnatural. I still believe that "homosexuality" is unnatural! You who are most intolerant yet claim to be tolerate, well some of you just got down right "mean"! Debating is good, name calling is, well. . . first grade! Childish!!! Anyways, all because I have a different view!!! That's fine! So much for "tolerance"!

Anyways, I don't believe that someone can't help being a homosexual... is wrong.!

A guy I know, announced to me that he was tired of the "gay" lifestyle. He found that anal sex was painful and said he no longer wanted that lifestyle. He changed his lifestyle back to being "straight" because he wanted to change.

And Ellen Degeneres' lesbian girlfriend, Anne Heche, left Ellen, and turning her back on homosexuality, and is happily married to cameraman Coley Laffoon.

So yes, homosexuals "can" change their chose and go straight.

So if anyone wants to be gay, it's your business what you do in your bedroom. Just that if you decide that lifestyle isn't for you, you aren't stuck in it. You can go straight. No shame in going straight!

Let's hear it for "Freedom of Speech"! Yes, "Freedom of Speech" is for ME too!

As for choosing their sexuality, that is to say, straight or gay, in my opinion all human beings do.

Surely you jest.

I've never met a single person who "chose" their sexual orientation, and I'm a couple of weeks shy of 63. I was attracted to girls at age 5, and yes, I have very clear memories of that, because those thoughts occupied most of my childhood fantasies. (OK, maybe they still do.) So what sort of "choice" could I have been making at the age of 5, when I had never even heard the word "sex"?

And what about the millions of gay people in this world? Are they a mass of raving masochists, who "choose" to be gay so they can enjoy being insulted, ridiculed, and beaten to a pulp? Society may be more tolerant of homosexuality today, but it still remains one tough slog, so the idea that anyone would choose to be gay is ludicrous. Any more than I chose to be straight, or chose to have blue eyes.

By extension, would you also say that left-handed people choose to be lefties so they can struggle their entire lives with appliances made for the rest of us? Frankly, I'm stunned by your comment.

I don't agree with the Old man! Homosexuality gets forced down my throat! They tell me that all gays are nice people, they are loving, they are kind,... & bla bla bla . . . Well I remember the first time someone told me what homosexuals do. I said "They put their "WHAT" into another guys "WHAT"??? I was shocked cause I thought, maybe homosexuals missed sex education class. So poop came from that place and I just couldn't wrap my thinking around the strangeness of "doing" that to someones' . . . Each to his own, but I ummmm well, . . . well, I still can't and won't go for that. Nor should I have to!

I watch a tv program where this guy had a love interest in his "sister"! She didn't like how he was acting around here, so the guy went for help from a councellor and solved his stronge desires for his sister. She didn't have the same feelings he did!

Anyways, there are some of us (me) who will never understand how men want men or how woman want woman. It's not that we are "homophobic" just like if I don't want to take "illegal drugs" makes me "drugaphobic"! I don't want to get high, I have a right to not do drugs if I chose not to. I have had people try to force me to take drugs & verbally abuse me for not going ahead with it. Call me a goody 2 shoes but leave me be!! . I personally just won't agree with homosexuallity, nor should I be forced to. I think when a man lays with a woman, a baby is produced. When a man lays with a man, nothing is produced. It just doesn't sit right with me. I don't understand it, so please . . . don't force it down my throat! I'm not beating up gays, I'm just not comfortable with the whole . . . with the whole, thought of it!

Thank you for understanding my side. I have a right to not accept it. Please don't verbally abuse me for having a different view of this than you do!

I play the piano. What I do in my bedroom is my business!

Yikes! Some of you certainly have a lot of time on your hands. I just got back from being out of town and, well, this thread has certainly turned into a "bummer" thread! (pun intended. Sorry, ...I couldn't resist!)

Anyways, I read through all the so-called "tolerate" comments. I read and read and am still NOT convinced. (Some of you have "wayyyyy" too much time on your hands!!!!) I still find that homosexuality is strange and unnatural. I still believe that "homosexuality" is unnatural! You who are most intolerant yet claim to be tolerate, well some of you just got down right "mean"! Debating is good, name calling is, well. . . first grade! Childish!!! Anyways, all because I have a different view!!! That's fine! So much for "tolerance"!

Anyways, I don't believe that someone can't help being a homosexual... is wrong.!

A guy I know, announced to me that he was tired of the "gay" lifestyle. He found that anal sex was painful and said he no longer wanted that lifestyle. He changed his lifestyle back to being "straight" because he wanted to change.

And Ellen Degeneres' lesbian girlfriend, Anne Heche, left Ellen, and turning her back on homosexuality, and is happily married to cameraman Coley Laffoon.

So yes, homosexuals "can" change their chose and go straight.

So if anyone wants to be gay, it's your business what you do in your bedroom. Just that if you decide that lifestyle isn't for you, you aren't stuck in it. You can go straight. No shame in going straight!

Let's hear it for "Freedom of Speech"! Yes, "Freedom of Speech" is for ME too!

I don't think gays and straights are ONLY that way by birth. I think there are many reasons for why someone might have a certain sexuality, I just think that most of the time, our orientation is hard-wired into our brains from birth (non-choice). But I do think there are openly sexual people out there who are really indifferent when it comes to preference and may switch back and forth when they please.

I won't comment on your personal issues with members here on PW because I have no idea who you are or your history here.

Yikes! Some of you certainly have a lot of time on your hands. I just got back from being out of town and, well, this thread has certainly turned into a "bummer" thread! (pun intended. Sorry, ...I couldn't resist!)

Your silly pun is nothing more than an indication that you don't care for anything else but for pushing down our throat your views and opinions!

Quote:

Anyways, I read through all the so-called "tolerate" comments. I read and read and am still NOT convinced. (Some of you have "wayyyyy" too much time on your hands!!!!) I still find that homosexuality is strange and unnatural. I still believe that "homosexuality" is unnatural! You who are most intolerant yet claim to be tolerate, well some of you just got down right "mean"! Debating is good, name calling is, well. . . first grade! Childish!!! Anyways, all because I have a different view!!! That's fine! So much for "tolerance"!

What seems to be eluding you is that it's not about tolerance. What if a poster is gay? In that case it's not about tolerance but his/her way of life! so way to go again on missing any kind of logic!

Quote:

Anyways, I don't believe that someone can't help being a homosexual... is wrong.!

By all means, I believe in the great big turtle, to where the earth stands! you can believe anything you want. You cannot come in hear to insult others!

Quote:

A guy I know, announced to me that he was tired of the "gay" lifestyle. He found that anal sex was painful and said he no longer wanted that lifestyle. He changed his lifestyle back to being "straight" because he wanted to change.

Well done on him. I also know someone who after a while decided that he didn't need any females in his life, but men and changed to being homosexual. What does that prove?

Quote:

And Ellen Degeneres' lesbian girlfriend, Anne Heche, left Ellen, and turning her back on homosexuality, and is happily married to cameraman Coley Laffoon.

So yes, homosexuals "can" change their chose and go straight.

So if anyone wants to be gay, it's your business what you do in your bedroom. Just that if you decide that lifestyle isn't for you, you aren't stuck in it. You can go straight. No shame in going straight!

Oh... this is what you mean.

Oh ok...

If you think you can change your totally insulting way of thinking and posting, and while you're at it, perhaps leave the threads that are not for you, the by all means do so. Although I suspect that you're not capable of doing so!

Moreover I should note that any "straight" person can also change his/her mind and go "homosexual", right? Why didn't you mention that?

Quote:

Let's hear it for "Freedom of Speech"! Yes, "Freedom of Speech" is for ME too!

Freedom, in every sense of the word stops where the next persons freedom starts. Do you really want to get into this discussion now?

Really, all you've been doing for the past couple of weeks (and in older times, but I've not been following you) is to troll, complaint and create problems.

what the heck are you doing in this thread anyway? Preaching? Promoting your business and your views? Cause I don't see anyone promoting anything really. I do see people defending their views but most importantly their own choices to you! Get the difference?

Diane...I would posit that the people you mentioned may be bisexual (or otherwise polysexual); in debates of this nature it's most commonly homosexuals focused on because they can't, as Joel put it, switch back and forth...um...so they kind of *have* to be "out" to be happy (well...fulfilled at least; not much promises happiness really ). Many polysexuals ascribe to being either straight or gay as, for some, it's just plain easier and, for many others, um, the whole "bi thing" isn't really talked about as much as the "gay thing" so, feeling attraction for a member of the same sex, falsely identify as gay through no intent of deception. I'm kind of interested in your opinion on asexuals; is that unnatural? I mean, um, are popes (and other members of particular faiths) unnatural in your eyes (not that popes are necessarily asexual; some will merely curb their impulses as a result of their position)? Also...um...there are quite a few instances of homosexual relations in animals...what are your opinions on this? I don't mean to come across as antagonising, in case you feel I'm attacking you, I'm genuinely curious without any backdrop of malice Oh, and RE: that guy you know...I mean, um, I'm simplifying a fair amount, but just because a pair of lovely heels kills your feet doesn't mean you don't want them, maybe it just means you have to stop wearing them *despite* the fact that they suit you perfectly.Xxx

_________________________
Sometimes, we all just need to be shown a little kindness <3

You *do* make a very convincing argument, I'll certainly grant you that much But we are talking of two very different forms of awe here...I'm not sure, in all honesty, that they can be compared. But, um, just FYI I used to study maths at university; I have a firm appreciation for the elegance in the rational...pushing aside the psychological curtain entails, not necessarily but always with the risk of, fear, you must agree?

I could...and shall I mean, incursive and reflexive thoughts can easily go astray; too many nihilists have gone the way of the dodo because of things very much along this line. Um...I terrified seven shades of **censored** out of myself when I plumbed my psychological depths. I'm better for it, and happier, I'll grant you...but it's still scary. I know that's not what you were talking about, however understanding things about how we think is very liable to setting us thinking about all forms of what we think also...I mean, um, it takes a very firm person, in my mind, to study art and not look at a painting differently to how they did before; our own minds are the clearest studies we could hope for...so...there's always the risk of (hence the absence of necessity) a never ending doubt freight-train plowing right into your brain tunnel...isn't there?

_________________________
Sometimes, we all just need to be shown a little kindness <3

I understood that Nietzsche went mad from tertiary syphilis rather than his head exploding from recursive nihilism.

It has been said: "A life without risk is a life not lived."

A doubt freight train plowing through one's mind is one possible response.

Another possibility is allowing ourselves to be free to go with the flow, to act, react and interact in, to and within the world around us spontaneously, without judgement, without fear and without believing too seriously in the artificial, mental boundaries constructed in our minds that unnecessarily separate us from the rest of this great jiggling and wobbling collection of quantum phenomena we call home and of which we are ultimately one.